beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 15, 2010 to February 17, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C’s bridge vehicles (hereinafter “instant bridge vehicles”) as the insured.
B. D, around 19:30 on October 15, 2010, while driving the instant bridge vehicle, she concealed the E concrete pumps truck owned by the Plaintiff with the instant bridge vehicle (hereinafter “instant pumps”).
(hereinafter “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion caused the instant accident to be exempted from the boom frame of the instant pumps, and paid KRW 12,321,100 as the repair cost of the instant pumps due to the damage of the boomer of the instant pumps, and KRW 27,850,250 as the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant pumps during the period of repair of the pumps. As such, the Defendant, as an insurer of the instant boom, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff, 40,171,350 won, and damages for delay.
B. In the instant accident, the lower court determined that the boomer’s back frame of the instant pumps was off, and that 400,000 won for the expenses for the rear frame of the boomer in the instant pumps to accept this, and the repairing period is two days, and the remaining 1.8 million won per day is not in dispute between the parties, or that 1.8 million won per day is not in dispute between the parties, or that the remaining boom in the instant pumps is not in dispute between the parties, or that the witness F’s testimony is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings.
However, as shown in the plaintiff's assertion that the boom boomer of the pumps of this case was damaged due to the accident of this case, it is difficult to believe that the witness G testimony in light of the appraiser F's appraisal result and witness F's testimony, and it is difficult to recognize only the descriptions of Gap Nos. 6 and 7, and evidence Nos. 8-1.